My Dixie Chicks Mindless Rant

[Bill Thompson]

I was not motivated until I saw The Dixie Chicks on Oprah.

How would the Dixie Chicks respond to these statements?

Freedom of speech is not free. It is a privilege, not a right. It was earned. The very sort of people whom The Dixie Chicks have offended and their families earned it.

Freedom of speech does not apply during to wartime in every case. The limits to free speech helped win the war against the Japanese. Remember, "Loose lips sink ships"? Although this is not the same case, motivating and encouraging the enemy while overseas can be just as dangerous.

Ironically, their comments may have prolonged the war by giving our enemies motivation to continue fighting. Thus they are being very pro-war without realizing it.

Treason by definition includes providing comfort an encouragement to an enemy during war.

Osama bin Laden felt that 911 was a good thing because he interpreted Americans buying the Quran as proof that he was bringing Islam to the infidels. It was a very weird view. But he was looking for any reason to justify and support his and his friends’ actions. Bin Laden got it wrong. He misinterpreted what was being said and done. On the other hand having the equivalent of three cheerleaders right from the heart of Bush's homeland go to another country (apparently so they can be safe to say what they feel) and cheer Al Qaeda on, is another story.

People get used to the fact that they have the freedoms to protest and cause civil disobedience within the United States and so they are shocked when it doesn't work when they leave the United States.

Another classic example is the human shields that went to Iraq to protest and cause civil disobedience. They were going to tie themselves to buildings that happened to be near military targets. When the Marines told them that they were going to become grease for their tank threads, they were dismayed.

FDR had often said that an overall common good surpasses individual rights in wartime. And remember, he was a Democrat.

Imagine this brief fiction:

During World War II, there were a lot of people
who did not understand why the United States
was going to war with Germany when it was japan
that had attacked us.

Still, the music group, The Georgia
Girls from Warm Springs, Georgia did not go to
Europe and say to their fans "Ya'll we are really
ashamed that FDR has a vacation cottage in Georga".
If they had, clearly they would imply that they
supported Hitler and disagreed with the war
(it was all about oil, right?). And even worse,
it would suggest that perhaps Georgians
held the same beliefs.

But if The Georgia Girls had done this, I
I suppose we should support them.
Besides, they are right in saying this.
Especially since there was no
connection between Japan and German.
(Clearly there had to be a conspiracy, besides we
are in-the-know and know better, right?).

Even if what they said was wrong, it isn't
like it would hurt troop morale or undermine
the war effort, right? And gee, it probably
wouldn't lengthen the war or make it less
likely that the war would go on longer and
cause more deaths, right?
​

I suspect it has somehow become chic to protest war in the post-Vietnam era regardless of your forethought or any experiences or credentials or idea how things could be done differently.

People forget that the Vietnam war lasted decades, was our most costly war and took a much bigger toll.

Maybe The Dixie Chicks were "in the moment" and were giving a respectful nod to the music legends of the 60's.

 

[varwoche]

Freedom of speech is not free. It is a privilege, not a right.

I need to learn more about the Bill of Privileges one of these days.

 

[shemp]

Maybe I'll take your idiotic rant seriously when you prove that Saddam was an ally of bin Laden and the Taliban and assisted in the 9/11 operation. Until then I have better things to do.

 

[RandFan]

I was one of those who has criticized the Dixie Chicks for not getting that everyone has freedom of speech including those that chose not to go to their concerts and those who spoke out against them. I did so in this forum.

That being said, I don't agree with a word you wrote. They absolutely have the right. Freedom ISN'T free. It requires that we speak out when our conscience moves us to speak out.

The Dixie Chicks where right to speak their minds even if some of us didn't like it. I fear the day when those I don't agree with are too afraid to speak. On that day my rights will have been lost.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Maybe I'll take your idiotic rant seriously when you prove that Saddam was an ally of bin Laden and the Taliban and assisted in the 9/11 operation. Until then I have better things to do.

That is easy. Two years before President Bush took office, CNN reported:

Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday. Bin Laden’s whereabouts were not known...Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

Saddam offered asylum to Osama? And Osama openly supports Iraq? That can’t be right, at least not according to the official mantra that the establishment media has been repeating for the last five years.

Also, read The Connection by Stephen F. Hayes.

One of these days I am going to tell people my first-hand account of my work with The Peace Keeping effort in Lebanon in the 80's. The press does not give us the straight dope. They are politically motivated just like other humans.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Maybe I'll take your idiotic rant seriously when you prove that Saddam was an ally of bin Laden and the Taliban and assisted in the 9/11 operation. Until then I have better things to do.

You have me on the Taliban assisting in 911. I have to agree with you there.

But, at the same time, the Taliban and Al Qaeda were related closely by marrage. So there was no way they would help us bring OBL to justiice. What else could we do? Didn't we give them a fair chance to help us? We gave them some time. And that time was used to assist bin Laden's escape.

I clearly rember that either Osama bin Laden had a wife who was a daughter of the head of the Taliban or one of bin Laden's sons was married to a Taliban daughter. Sorry. It has been something like 5 years now.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I need to learn more about the Bill of Privileges one of these days.

Good one.

It would be great if our Bill of Rights applied on foreign soil and was understood universally and there were no wars so that exceptions did not have to be made.

Our founding fathers did not have special magic powers to make these rights universal.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I was one of those who has criticized the Dixie Chicks for not getting that everyone has freedom of speech including those that chose not to go to their concerts and those who spoke out against them. I did so in this forum.

That being said, I don't agree with a word you wrote. They absolutely have the right. Freedom ISN'T free. It requires that we speak out when our conscience moves us to speak out.

The Dixie Chicks where right to speak their minds even if some of us didn't like it. I fear the day when those I don't agree with are too afraid to speak. On that day my rights will have been lost.

I have to wonder if this was the case with Americans who opposed World War I and World War II.

Would and did anyone go overseas and speak out against those efforts?

 

[RandFan]

I have to wonder if this was the case with Americans who opposed World War I and World War II.

Would and did anyone go overseas and speak out against those efforts?

I'm not sure how good of an analogy it is but I sure wouldn't have had a problem with it.

Iraq was controversial. I supported Bush but intellectual honesty forced me to concede many of the arguments made against it on this forum.

In any event, I really don't think Iraq can be compared to WWII. As to Iraq, the UN wanted to wait because they felt that there was a reasonably good chance that Saddam didn't have the weapons and that he would fully comply and they felt that the evidence that America et al provided was a bit shakey. Hindight being what it was the detractors were right. It's rather hard to tell those who were right that they were wrong in being vocal about being right.

 

[DanishDynamite]

That is easy. Two years before President Bush took office, CNN reported:

​

Saddam offered asylum to Osama? And Osama openly supports Iraq? That can’t be right, at least not according to the official mantra that the establishment media has been repeating for the last five years.

I think shemp was asking for evidence that Saddam assisted bin Laden with the 9/11 attack. Whether Saddam offered bin Laden asylum some 2.5 years before the attack, a purported offer which was in any case not taken, hardly seems relevant.

Anyway, to get back to these Dixie Chicks you talk about. I gather they are a band, from the hints in the previous posts. What exactly has this band done which upsets you so?

 

[Bill Thompson]

I have to say I appreciate these posts and I will give them respectful thought.

Danish, here is the story as told by my point of view. What this band did was to go on tour in the UK and say something they might not have wanted to in the end. This was right at the heat of the US lead invasion and the public was emotionally charged after 911 and going in to take out Saddam.

The band is from Texas and they consist of three (I confess) very talented women who were until then very admired by the American public.

Now, I have heard that they were influenced by the fact that they were emersed in the UK culture of tabloids where people attack the royality and government in a cruel way. Also, it is known that these women like to say things off the top of their head in a concert.

Maybe they were sensitive about being from the south and maybe they were sensitive about not portraying themselves and right-wingers (as Texans seem to be labeled as). They said something to the effect "we want you all to know that we are ashamed that President Bush is from Texas"

ok, so, why do they want them all to know.

To be honest I think they might have had any idea what impact this would have to other people's feelings. When your son is going thousand of miles away to possibly die, it hurts when your favorate band decides to crush his morale.

Right after 911, Bush's support was at 90 percent. Some people were still at that fever pitch. It is too stunning that some americans were not and they were proud to announce it to a foreign audience.

Here is a new idea (if reversing yourself is allowed here). Maybe they didn’t really know, care or think of politics at the time. As I said, they are known to shout out anything the audience wants to hear and the UK is known for their tabloids that bash politicians. I think it is likely they just wanted to fit in.

I think this in light of the fact that they made an apology to the president.

And then, after Katrina, they retracted that apology.

So maybe there is a new reason to dislike them. Maybe they are just very unethical.

 

[PogoPedant]

Seems to me it's all touchy-feely stuff. People had their emotions hurt by a pop-artists.

 

[RandFan]

Seems to me it's all touchy-feely stuff. People had their emotions hurt by a pop-artists.

Yep, but then lots of people have had their emotions hurt by a fat winbag.

 

[Tony]

I have to wonder if this was the case with Americans who opposed World War I and World War II.

Would and did anyone go overseas and speak out against those efforts?

I know if gives you an erection the size of small car to think so, but Iraq is not WW1 or WW2. Not even close. The situations are fundamentally different.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I think shemp was asking for evidence that Saddam assisted bin Laden with the 9/11 attack. Whether Saddam offered bin Laden asylum some 2.5 years before the attack, a purported offer which was in any case not taken, hardly seems relevant.

• If they are on the same side as far as each other is concerned;
• If they support each others efforts;
• If we are already at war with Iraq for all practical purposes (but feeling until then that they are contained);
• If the UN and even the Democrats urge and have urged that something had to be done about Saddam

isn't it just as ethical to go to war with Iraq as it was ethical to go to war with Germany eventhough Japan had attacked the United Staes in the 1940's?

I was watching the run-up to the invasion into Iraq closely. Never did I hear 9-11 mentioned in the UN resolutions and agreed-to treaties and policies that Saddam had broken.

Clearly The Dixie Chicks were not watching CSPAN. I wonder where they got their news or information to form the basis of their opinions.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I know if gives you an erection the size of small car to think so, but Iraq is not WW1 or WW2. Not even close. The situations are fundamentally different.

Actually it does not give me an erection at all. Please explain yourself. Why would you think so? And why are the situations fundamentally different?

I am prepared to address this but I need to know the specifics. Please provide more than just a crude personal attack (attacking the messenger and not the message) and a sound bite.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Seems to me it's all touchy-feely stuff. People had their emotions hurt by a pop-artists.

I have given this some thought too. Lets suppose there are insurgents in Iraq for a moment that we want to defeat by crushing their will to fight. That is touchy-feely stuff.

 

[fishbob]

Freedom of speech is not free. It is a privilege, not a right. It was earned. The very sort of people whom The Dixie Chicks have offended and their families earned it.

The very sort of people offended by Dixie Chicks shame that Bush is from Texas are the ones too dumb to have earned any kind of privilege. The very fact that these numbnoggins do speak their minds, interminably, means that you are wrong.

 

[Bill Thompson]

The very sort of people offended by Dixie Chicks shame that Bush is from Texas are the ones too dumb to have earned any kind of privilege. The very fact that these numbnoggins do speak their minds, interminably, means that you are wrong.

An alternative could be that the media only shows you the dumbest hicks of the bunch that are offended and you base your opinon on that, don't you think? Or have you done some independent research?

Plus, numbnoggins sometimes are right. Just because someone is a numbnoggin does not mean they are wrong. You need to show some more facts than just assume that just because someone is a numbnoggin they are automatically wrong. They might have a view of the situation that you have not considered or some details that the media does not want to make light of because it does not serve them.

I have worked with numbnoggins. Some of them are hard working people who overcome their numbnogginness and do great things with their lives. Some even get advancement in the corporate world.

You need to keep an open mind in everything. If nothing else, it can sharpen your argument if you are right.

 

[fishbob]

An alternative could be that the media only shows you the dumbest hicks of the bunch that are offended and you base your opinon on that, don't you think? Or have you done some independent research?

Plus, numbnoggins sometimes are right. Just because someone is a numbnoggin does not mean they are wrong. You need to show some more facts than just assume that just because someone is a numbnoggin they are automatically wrong. They might have a view of the situation that you have not considered or some details that the media does not want to make light of because it does not serve them.

I have worked with numbnoggins. Some of them are hard working people who overcome their numbnogginness and do great things with their lives. Some even get advancement in the corporate world.

You need to keep an open mind in everything. If nothing else, it can sharpen your argument if you are right.

Like I said, the fact that they do speak their minds, over and over and over shows that you are wrong.